Sat Aug 18, 2007 2:08 pm sean_mcr wrote:I'm going to play devils advocate here.
Anbody that's interested should follow this discussion, step by step.
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... y-doe.html
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... e-by-.html (Jypsee, Jerry Uelsmann is spoken of in this section)
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... t-on-.html
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... hind-.html
I've since discussed a few issues with the OP and don't believe PP of any kind has anything to do with the questions she's asking of herself.
Interesting reading Sean, and sure makes a person think...about the bounds of digital manipulation and manipulation even of film. Makes a person think about exactly what photography is, isn't, or the chaotic definition, or lack of one, of anything that people do. I think, to me anyway, that definition is extremely influenced by the preconceptions the person who is looking to define it already has. Like is the person coming to the definition with the notion that photography is a record of events, or are they coming to it thinking it is a medium for sheer design or a way to abstract the world, sort of like psychologically influencing the viewer to get at a deeper truth? Fiction and non fiction? There are a lot of other issues involved too...like if photography is "supposed" to be a record of events, and is presented as such...then how much manipulation before the intent is destroyed? In that way maybe photography is "dead". Maybe it's all going to boil down in the end much like it has in literature...to the integrity of the author. I also think photography is evolving in practical purposes as something more akin to painting. Strange photography starts out as something that was the ultimate goal once of painters, to record a scene exactly as it was(and which was sidetracked with the advent of photography) ...and now photography at least in many ways seems to be turning away from the intent of exact recording of what the lens sees. I think this is a pretty deep subject (to say the least) does art express what we really see? or does it express what we feel? Are truths external or internal? At any rate Interesting. Hope I haven't missed the point of the original article, since the secondary link to the thesis part of it was dead. Thanks. Edit:8/23/07:
I've been doing a lot of thinking about this. It seems to me that in certain regards say doing extremely heavy post processing may be a requirement for fashion, stock, commercial, product or many forms of creative photography...that doing more than correcting basic aspects of a photo somehow diminishes, in many cases, the touch of reality that links us to a photo or at least a photo as it has been understood...Is it still a photo then...or is it something else?